State v. Haynes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Haynes

610 So. 2d 114, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 1992 WL 385369

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1859

StatusPublished

This text of 610 So. 2d 114 (State v. Haynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Haynes, 610 So. 2d 114, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 1992 WL 385369 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

The state purports to bring this appeal from the imposition of an habitual felon sentence on the basis that the sentence is illegal. We disagree and grant Haynes’ motion to dismiss the appeal. While the state is entitled to appeal or cross appeal an illegal sentence pursuant to section 924.-07(l)(e), Florida Statutes, the instant sentence is not illegal. Cf. State v. Hohl, 431 So.2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the state’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Turning to Haynes’ cross appeal, we hold that although it was error for the trial court to give the jury an instruction on flight,¹ the error was harmless beyond any [115]*115reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Haynes’ judgment of conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WIGGINTON, Judge.

The state purports to bring this appeal from the imposition of an habitual felon sentence on the basis that the sentence is illegal. We disagree and grant Haynes’ motion to dismiss the appeal. While the state is entitled to appeal or cross appeal an illegal sentence pursuant to section 924.-07(l)(e), Florida Statutes, the instant sentence is not illegal. Cf. State v. Hohl, 431 So.2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the state’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Turning to Haynes’ cross appeal, we hold that although it was error for the trial court to give the jury an instruction on flight,¹ the error was harmless beyond any [115]*115reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Haynes’ judgment of conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 114, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13346, 1992 WL 385369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-haynes-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack